residential neighborhood

Landowner applied to the Board of Adjustment for a permit to develop a medical clinic, which was denied based on concerns for the neighborhood. Court found that the landowner should have had a second chance to present evidence, and that the Board must make reviewable findings of fact based solely on the testimony and evidence presented at hearings.

Property owner sought to rezone land from residential to business. Application was denied by County Board of Commissioners due to potential adverse effects. The court held that the property owner was entitled to de novo review by trial court.

Landowners brought suit against county for rezoning adjacent land without proper notice. The court ruled that the landowners failed to allege sufficient injury to challenge the county's ordinance.

Nearby property owners brought special action aginst City regarding rezoning to construct a large chain discount store due to adverse effects. Court held that the property owners did not have taxpayer standing to challenge rezoning as their property was not located close enough to the parcel to show particularized harm.

Neighbor complained to code enforcement about property owner's outdoor lighting. Property owner sought stalking injunction in response. Court ruled evidence did not support willful and malicious conduct to support stalking injunction.

Plaintiff developer applied for a conditional use permit to build condominiums on his property. The County Board of Adjustment denied the application following laywitness testimony about concerns with regard to increased traffic, noise, litter, and light pollution. The Court found that the laywitness concerns were contained in the list of reasons set out in section 408.4 of the Code which support the denial of a request for a conditional use permit. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment that the County Board of Adjustment did not err in denying plaintiff developer the application for a conditional use permit.